Ok, surprised to read that these are your thoughts, to be honest.
Kids getting into crime, imo (and seemingly iyo, too) is due to bad parenting for the most part -- as opposed to a lack of public education per se. If kids have nothing to do all day, that's the fault of the parents, not the absence of whatever it is they happen to not be doing.
Sure, public education helps lazy parents keep their unruly kids busy all day, but so could hockey camp, or working around the house, or whatever. I don't think it's the responsibility of the state to do parents' job for them, and only ends up encouraging the idiocy you see now. Thus, you could easily make an argument that public education increases crime, as it increases bad parenting, a bigger correlator.
IMO, the worst consequence of public education is that everyone learns the same stuff, and way too much of it. We're totally homogeneous when we come out of it. It takes more and more education to specialise, and more and more time to master a craft. Having a high school diploma doesn't mean anything. Even an undergrad is typical now.
Side note: Dalton McGuinty (Ontario Premier) recently passed legislation that would disallow a teenager from obtaining their license unless they graduate school. What impact would not having a driver's license likely have on a high school dropout looking for a job? And what impact would not being able to find a job have on the dropout's chances of turning to crime?
OK thanks for that elucidation. I see where you're coming from and I agree with everything you say, believe it or not. My position that the gov't sucks at everything it does, that it does more harm than good, that is evil to the core, etc. hasn't changed.
I was only looking at the immediate effect of taking the situation of today and instantaneously wiping out public schools in one go. I still believe you'd have a short-term increase in crime, even if there is a decrease in crime in the long run because of what you say, and other measures that could be taken.
A pure ACist would probably say that government is evil, so getting rid of all of its levels and branches is non-negotiable. Then if I say, "Don't you think there'd be a spike in crime if you did that?", they'd likely say "So what? Deal with each crime as it happens. Eventually the perpetrators will get deterred because it won't be the impotent and useless government that's penalizing the crimes but private citizens who can do a much better job of it."
I realize I'm probably answering my own question here, but I guess I just wanted to double check that this is really the ACist position, in case I missed something.
But indeed, bad parenting is definitely the root cause of a lot of society's problems, no question, and governments do plenty to incentivize bad parenting.
I think that, based on my travels, which include about 47 states and 10 provinces, that Ontario is on the podium as one of the top three examples of government run amok of any place I've ever seen. I heard you couldn't even tailgate at a fuckin NFL preseason game that they experimentally held in Toronto because of the stupid alcohol laws. I don't even want to know how much they charged for beer in the stadium, if they even allowed it.
